Rave if you believe Romney made the right choice in Choosing Ryan as his campaign running mate.
Deputy Chief
2012/08/11 16:10:30
|
|
|||||
|
154 votes
|
|
66% | |||
|
10 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
6 votes
|
|
3% | |||
|
65 votes
|
|
28% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Vision of Verve 2012/08/11 16:11:24Ryan was a solid choice as his budget is what our country needs to reduce spe...
What's more, it puts Ryan's budget front-and-center for this election. It may motivate conservatives to vote more, but it will put a lot of republicans in the House on the defensive -- a lot more than half of Americans oppose Ryan's budget (as well as opposing its individual parts).
So... Ryan might give Romney a long-shot chance at presidency, but it risks the House. If Romney loses and gives Congress to the democrats, how is that going to look?
Granted, the democrats' chances of retaking the House are poor, but they are far better this week than they were last week.
Of course, Rubio and Christy would have been poor choices, too -- the first lied about his parents fleeing Castro, and both would have overshadowed Romney. The best choice would have been Portman from Ohio -- giving Romney a VERY good chance at taking Ohio.
Ryan motivates the conservative base... but he also strikes fear into the hearts of democrats, so he motivates THEIR base as well.
And Medicare actually DOES exert control over what doctors charge -- it always has since its creation. Obama's plan doesn't change that at all.
On the other hand, it is tax that very few people will have to pay. Those who are too poor to afford health insurance (income levels up to something like twice poverty) get subsidized care, and most of the rest of us already have insurance -- because almost everyone who *can* have health insurance chooses to get it.
It is primarily a tax on single adults in the 26 to 35 age group -- they are the ones most likely to choose to avoid buying insurance.
Thus, even if both doctors decide to actually charge only Medicare fees, they might charge differently since costs are different in California and Texas. Additionally, the California doctor might have agreed to only charge the Medicare rate (there are benefits to agreeing to it), while the Texas doctor might choose to bill at the highest legal rate under Medicare (there is an obvious benefit to this, which the Texas doctor feels offsets the disadvantages to not complying with the fixed schedule).
So... doctors can charge different amounts, but only within a fixed range. That is a control of costs, and it is one of the reasons some doctors do not accept Medicare patients. On the other hand, what I've read (posts by many doctors) suggests that Medicare is more prompt and reliable than private insurance for payments, so some doctors are willing to accept less for consistent prompt payments.
An interesting point only tangentially rel...
Thus, even if both doctors decide to actually charge only Medicare fees, they might charge differently since costs are different in California and Texas. Additionally, the California doctor might have agreed to only charge the Medicare rate (there are benefits to agreeing to it), while the Texas doctor might choose to bill at the highest legal rate under Medicare (there is an obvious benefit to this, which the Texas doctor feels offsets the disadvantages to not complying with the fixed schedule).
So... doctors can charge different amounts, but only within a fixed range. That is a control of costs, and it is one of the reasons some doctors do not accept Medicare patients. On the other hand, what I've read (posts by many doctors) suggests that Medicare is more prompt and reliable than private insurance for payments, so some doctors are willing to accept less for consistent prompt payments.
An interesting point only tangentially related: single-payer countries like Canada have much less paperwork and costly delays in billing; it is estimated that doctors there do not really lose income because they cannot charge what they want -- because they make it up in less bureaucracy (which actually costs a lot).
As for Ryan's plan, it does not (directly) affect anyone over 55 -- that is true. But seniors get very nervous when someone tampers with Medicare -- it makes them worry that people will decide to tamper more and actually affect the benefits to people over 55. Whether this is true or even possible I do not know, but I know seniors worry about that.
Ryan's plan would also raise the age the general population is eligible by a few years, which is (honestly) a pretty good idea given how our population ages.
People like me who are (gulp) 50 worry a great deal more. The system Ryan proposes would not cost me more --- assuming private insurance rates do not go up. But they ALWAYS go up. So it would almost surely end up costing me a heck of a lot more.
Did I answer your questions satisfactorily? I confess I am no expert on Medicare -- though I clearly should start to think about it. But the information is available on the web in FAQ's (though you have to swim through many political web pages to find reliable facts).
Not voting Nov 6th is a vote for Obama and America killing Obamunism.
http://ontheissues.org/Paul_R...
Chris Christie has a lot of annoying RINO tendencies. Besides, what he really wants to be is Attorney General.
Paul Ryan was the right choice at the right time.